Two rulings

Two recent rulings in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court have raised the ire of citizens and there has been a lot of debate about whether Magistrate Hazel Octive-Hamilton, who handed down both rulings, took all of the mitigating factors into account.

In the first ruling, which was on Friday last, Magistrate Octive-Hamilton sentenced a father to 6 weeks in prison for physically abusing his 14-year-old daughter. A medical report, which was tendered in court, revealed that the child had several contusions – a sign that she had been badly beaten and the allegation was that her father had beaten her with an electrical cord. The father denied this, stating that he had used two belts.

The father, who was very emotional, told the court that his daughter, who had lost her mother at age 9, had started having sexual relationships with older men and that was why he had sought to discipline her.

Corporal punishment is a hot topic, with those for and against it having equally strong views. The pro-corporal punishment camp was strident in its view that the father had a right to discipline his obviously ‘promiscuous’ daughter and that the court was in error to send him to prison for doing that, as it was sending the wrong message to the child. The anti-corporal punishment camp said the father was wrong, as he should have used other avenues open to him to get help for the child – like the probation and welfare service and the Child Care and Protection Agency (CCPA). The magistrate said as much, as she bemoaned the fact that although the father knew the service was available and had actually approached the CCPA once, made no effort to follow up.

What is sad is that no one really spoke for the teenager. She was vilified in court as a ‘bad’ person; a young girl who sleeps with “older men”. No one sought to ask why, even though, from the details that emerged in court, it was not difficult to deduce that the child was in crisis. This is a girl whose mother died when she was just 9 years old and who has been living with her father and stepmother. It’s possible that the girl was never afforded the opportunity to mourn properly and overcome the trauma of losing her mother at such a young age. Events in life affect individuals differently. There is also no way of knowing just how this girl had been raised over the last five years. Was love and compassion offered to her? Did she feel wanted and needed by her family? There are so many factors that can drive children into the arms of strangers/predators.

In addition, after the child’s father found out that she was having sexual relations with older men, what did he do? Should he not have contacted the police and have the man/men arrested and charged? Should he not have done everything to protect her from these obvious predators? Instead, a child, who is not yet at the age where she can have consensual sex, was blamed, harangued and finally brutalized.

Magistrate Octive-Hamilton’s ruling was spot on. The father’s sentence serves to remind him and us that violence is never the answer and it is hoped that he would use the time in prison to reflect on his own life and to prepare to be a better father when he emerges. The magistrate also ordered counselling for the child and that the CCPA ensures she gets the help she needs.

In the second ruling, a woman who hit her reputed husband with a rolling pin and pulled a knife on him was fined $15,000 or alternatively ordered to spend 10 days in prison.

It was revealed in court that the woman, a victim of abuse for some 17 years, was trying to protect her just healed broken arm from her husband who threatened to “break all two”.

Domestic violence is right up there on the front burner with corporal punishment. The number of women beaten, hammered and killed by their husbands and partners has reached epidemic proportions; so much so that a ‘National Conversation’ on the issue was launched yesterday—yet another in a series of interventions that have been held over the last few years, none of which have appears to have helped curb the scourge.

Anti-domestic violence activists bemoaned the fact that the magistrate fined the woman $15,000, even after evidence emerged in court that she had been battered for years. However, it was also brought out in court, that the woman had never ever made a report to the police about any of the instances of abuse meted out to her by her husband. And she felt betrayed that her husband had quickly trotted off to the police station after she stood up to him, using her rolling pin.

Some activists found Magistrate Octive-Hamilton’s imposition of a $15,000 fine harsh and said it signalled to women that they could be punished for defending themselves. But in fact, the fine warns against resorting to violence as a means of ending violence. The magistrate did indicate to the defendant that she ought to have reported the abuse and she ordered that the couple seek counselling.

In both of her rulings, Magistrate Octive-Hamilton dispensed justice tempered with mercy, as well as a means by which both the defendants and the complainants could learn from their errors and move forward.